http://www.white-history.com/hwrdet.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jan/02/detroit-ruins-marchand-meffre-photographs-ohagan?intcmp=239

Now, the problem as I understand it is that you don’t understand how means must necessarily be limited.

Ie: your understanding is thus:
1. Ends must be limited in order for us to want them.
2. Means have no need to be limited.

Am I correct in this?

In my homeland, we “southerners” are always in competition with the easterners, northerners and westerners, and when my white southerner friends talk about politics, they talk about it in the same framework as the blacks you described. Ie, how will this benefit “us southerners”. Because “we southerners” don’t want to produce all the wealth and see it blown on those damn easterners.

Now obviously this can’t be racially based because we’re more or less homogenously white. (Of course we don’t want to blow our cash on immigrants or foreigners either.)

Now, if the “southerners” vs “rest of them” situation isn’t racial preference then what is it? I’d say it’s cultural and class preferences.
I see no reason why it should be any different in the case of blacks.

Having to walk public streets in itself both limits and extends your freedom. If that street were private property, you may not have the freedom to walk there. Since this is now a part of the commons, you have a right to walk there, as do others who share in the same commons by virtue of their citizenship.

Your argument that “My liberty, not to mention personal safety, would thus be enhanced by the removal of blacks from my country” is not just racist, but positively despotic. To achieve an enhancement of your liberty would entail using the coercive powers of the state machinery, followed by a backlash against civil society, more simmering hatred, and more loss of freedom for everyone.

Even advocating such a stand would mean that you have to disavow your belief in libertarianism and embrace authoritarian government as the fixer of all society’s evils. And once such an argument is used to unleash a monster, variations of that same argument will be used effectively by other groups to exile all sorts of so-called races.

It is with such arguments, which gain the sanction of the voters, that dictators are unleashed. And once they taste power, there’s no way to stop them except for more violence. In the real world, such actions as you advocate would therefore result in a loss of liberty, go against the grain of anarchocapitalism and liberalism, and strengthen state control over society.

A liberal in lakeview,
Ad hominem attacks are unbecoming, and reveal your inadequacy to argue your position logically. You’ve spewed quite a lot of horse manure with your inane comments.

Now, what does it mean to say that Human Action “isn’t really true???”. Consider the following two statements.

(1) Human Action is true.
(2) Human Action is not true.

One of these must be correct, where “is true” means that every statement in the book is true; that every argument construed as valid is indeed valid; that every inference is logical, asf. To agree that it “is true” is to affirm that there’s nothing in there that ought not to be. So, if there is in Human Action so much as a single error of the type I’ve mentioned, then how could it be that “Human Action is “really true”?

Wouldn’t it be astonishing to find such a book? And what should one do if an error is found in Human Action or if someone else shows you that it has an error? Cast it aside, then begin a new search for an errorless book or collection of papers? If you did so, I think you’d be searching for a very long time if not also for a very short book.

QUESTION: In what way does a corporation do its “existing”?

Now, Blaise Pascal was on to something important when he made his remarks about clarifying concepts and the words and symbols used to indicate them. You can find some of those remarks on method in W. Stanley Jevons’ Elementary Lessons in Logic, available for free from the LvMI. At the end of “Lesson XIII, PASCAL AND DESCARTES ON METHOD.”, Jevons suggests,

Read Locke’s brief Essay on the Conduct of the Un-
derstanding, which contains admirable remarks on
the acquirement of exact and logical habits of
thought.”

So, how can this advice be applied to answer my question, “in what way does a corporation do its ‘existing’?”. My Latin dictionary has a quote which will yield good fruit if that defintion is borne in mind always while discussing the word “corporation”.

corpore*us -a -um adj. physical, of the body; corporeal, substantial; of the flesh

Feminists, you might wish to arrange your dictionaries consistent with the following:

corpore*a -us -um adj. physical, of the body; corporeal, substantial; of the flesh

Surely the relatively minor revision, mostly a matter of housekeeping, would reduce the confusion experienced by beginners. Further, it would be more consistent with the tables of declension endings one finds in a guide to Latin grammar, hence the reduction of confusion among beginners.

To be continued…

When the webmaster figures out how to construct a db index on the name and IP of Leon Haller, a racial realist, he’ll be frozen out for good.

Now, what sensible person person does not think that shipping the “Congressional WHITE Caucus” out to sea by barge would leave “white America…far better off in private terms”?

Yep, that, too, makes sense, Antiknower.

Yep, that, too, makes sense.

“The ‘Congressional WHITE Caucus’ is almost everyone in Congress but the Congressional Black Caucus.” In fact, at one time the only “caucus” in Congress was the “Congressional WHITE Caucus”.

[Why get into the shark cage when all one needs to do is to rap it a few times with a fishing rod?]

Fear of being criminally victimised by them limits even my freedom, let alone that of my girlfriend and other women, the physically feeble, etc – any decent person who has to fear crime.

The fear exists in your head and only in your head. Well, in that and in your mind, too. It is nothing other than your own mental errors that limit your freedom. As for the remarks about “girlfriend…other women…the physically feeble”: you’re just rationalizating with a bit of posturing and, I have no doubt, intent to pander, mixed in for special efffect.

I grew up in Detroit. White. Was born there not long after the riots. Was raised on Bedford, in a neighborhood that transformed itself in just a few years from a haven for the naive children of city employees to a place where you get knives held up to your face and your friend knocked off his bike while he’s right in front of you. (We were riding on the sidewalks.)

Now, why don’t you stop making excuses for your malice? C’mon on now, it’s time for leon to grow up. And find yourself a woman with a pair. Ask her to loan you one of that pair.

How things might be arranged without the State is not relevant to the existing situation.

Kvatch. Half of your mind is half-trapped in a parallel universe where “your ignorance and ideological fanaticism” have trapped that half. First, there is no such thing in physical space as “the State”, as you put it without deliberate intent to be pretentious. Second, there exists in this world individuals. Political theorizing is about how they ought to interact with one another. Political theorizing is about ethics.

In your imagination, however, ethics is about making up excuses for lashing out violently at every hobgoblin and boogeyman, even the ones that pose to you no immediate danger and which never would if you’d mind your business, zip your mouth, and turn off your computer. When you can’t identify a hobgoblin or boogeyman near to you, you project your [ahem] ethics as needed on to whatever persons you do find nearby in order to imagine that you have evidence to continue believing as you already do.

You’re the twenty-five y.o. punk who goes to the bar [e.g. Harrington's, on N. Halsted St.] with a chip on its shoulder, gets into a staredown with some other guy there, and then, sure enough, ends up in a fight outside, in the middle of the street. (You banged the other guy’s head on the pavement in self-defense.) Of course, like the scar on the corner of your mouth, the conflict wasn’t your fault, not even when you baited him by shouting and pointing at him while he was getting into a cab. You see, “leon”, that other guy is bascially just you, and I lived with your for nearly a year and have known you for many more than that afterwards.

So also are you the niggers, barbarous blacks, with whom you are so eager to get into a fight. Between you and them is about foreskin’s worth of differnce. Of course, not all blacks are barbarous, as you claim yourself.

Now that you’re in middle age, or later, you drive around at night with a gun in your lap fancying yourself a savior of “girlfriend and other women, the physically feeble, etc – any decent person who has to fear crime”. You remind me of a kook in a movie with Sean Connery. (Connery wasn’t the kook, who while out on patrol encountered two people having a swordfight in an alley.)

Now, why don’t you stop making excuses for your malice? C’mon on now, it’s time for leon to grow up. And find yourself a woman with a pair. Ask her to loan you one of that pair.

My point is that a race which behaves in a racist / collectivist manner as blacks do, within a democracy, has a massive advantage over a race disproportionately committed to individualism.

There you go again, leon, revealing “your ignorance and ideological fanaticism.” A race is a term for which could be substituted set without loss of meaning, and so long as the context is clear, we can use “set” to refer to “blacks”, by which you mean Africans, although in N. American those called blacks frequently have fairer skin than those in India.

Now, the members of the set exist in physical space. Not so the set. This is how liberals know that your expression “a race which behaves” is just a crude a setup for the fig leaves with which you offer to hide your shameful motives, which include assault, battery, enslavement, homicide, etc.

If Hans Hoppe shared in your forumulation, then he, too, needs to be discredited.

So we could take kids from their families and put them in a classroom eight hours a day, teach them the same subject matter, use the same pedagogy, administer the same tests, and we’d get equality of outcomes between different racial groups, right?

‘Race’ has become crimethink in our gnostic, politically correct society instead of what it really is: a very large, extended family, and one which has been around a lot longer than the secular, propositional State.

It is the State which insists “there’s no such thing as race” and that biological families don’t matter, and which passes hundreds of laws and spends billions of dollars to maintain the delusion. The day we wake up without the State, it’s back to Family faster than you can say blood is thicker than water. This is the trend globally, as the multicultural democracies collapse from fiscal and imperial overreach.

Spoken like a true liberal.

Leon Haller

My views are far beyond this. I perfectly understand your point. Indeed, I helped formulate it in conversations with Hans Hoppe two decades ago. But, two responses. First, we do not live in the purely private society imagined by anarchocapitalists. I do have to walk public streets also open to violent minorities (esp blacks). Fear of being criminally victimised by them limits even my freedom, let alone that of my girlfriend and other women, the physically feeble, etc – any decent person who has to fear crime. Why should we? And, to whom do those public streets belong? Who decides who gets to use them, and under what conditions? (Open borders jackasses have no response to this, and never will. Open Borders = Open Invasion.)

(Another example is airports. Yes, they should be private, with their own security procedures. What if those procedures were maximally rational, and thus involved racial and ethnic profiling? I assume you and other liberals here would be indifferent to that? But, we do not have private airports – and still require security procedures. How things might be arranged without the State is not relevant to the existing situation.)

Second, I am concerned with Really Existing Liberty. You know, in America (my home), in the Real World. In the Real World, blacks, as both criminals (compared to whites), and as socialist voters, massively detract from my REAL liberty. My liberty, not to mention personal safety, would thus be enhanced by the removal of blacks from my country. My point is that a race which behaves in a racist / collectivist manner as blacks do, within a democracy, has a massive advantage over a race disproportionately committed to individualism. You people really haven’t understood this point, let alone offered any evidence for the proposition that racial integration and multiracialism do not negatively effect the amount of liberty enjoyed by whites (esp, white Americans). Our liberty is reduced as ‘diversity’ increases. If we were so assinine as actually to implement “open borders”, the liberties (and wealth) of whites would vanish in less than a single year. Deny this, and you reveal your ignorance and ideological fanaticism.